Re: [Doh] [Ext] A question on the mix of DNS and HTTP semantics

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 19 March 2018 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
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 870AE127419 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 04:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 KwI_T8ASjZXM for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 04:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22c.google.com (mail-oi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B56351200B9 for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 04:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id a189so6948264oii.2 for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 04:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=COidHCNi3qDnDNOy52V0H+y2pwI7qjOiMyWfjtI2BC8=; b=N8TCfw0yptIjo6rZI5HefmICpqOKbTO2yxwJW//fWUTuXAN+YqVKrbdrwVwf62LewJ L4S68dcrQzlhL5YRGPnE9SFNJYGAwYv0StmLv+8D+QZ+6nsR0uPQKaM6d/D00Kr6pNBE YvbjVv3q42XZslUvhQ14sXBi6Yo7k2Vp6DjLf2OvaQ6ys54tvYyKmFnNvs5q/4/AGvgJ NmENEg/t8cdffJkABcaQtmjMq7lp1Ee2i4wG86vPxiaBGCxELd3SQnR0iPDBd8xsBWWz ddpkUUcoF4ODIDUdbQjWldyp4ExTNvhgHRlVR2H6wWKgMpB6hOeq5vCXb+bWKiYwIA/2 a7qg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=COidHCNi3qDnDNOy52V0H+y2pwI7qjOiMyWfjtI2BC8=; b=dWYZNOS7DsDqQRdGfOhfUaZQ5xyOv6gyh/OqqDQo38Hn+yh6nffRXxJ+7M3LIcO8hO 12o+9G/mJ6sHyN0u9k4+IvaWLmLx15TNC2aNXByEpNr+VBHXvSMFaDfae3R6pvoX2Gnn RQpJaO4izVAfL/35KVbi+82BqdThr832qs4yrzuiN5D8CKCAFJADEc/CQkX4Av3yctS9 It4XWcLFbWnxQuIqVQerzN1BV5EgsYLsdG1Qi4m/xEduNP7BkDExYu+V7gjTxmwUt32U Fz743yhGBrJYy8Q9zJ5/ErMLx4/apOxtJ1p5ZbkL53GtmsNNRZhYl3DfKWS4Y0QI074L FXeQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FR4gqixSPfW0sNaSY9JCJJmMaecimna/tebjejZ//M1VJDkHXH IZBxZbePYxzx7tWeqgR5sKC5SmPDq9sk7EG9XD4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvf6c+minnHThKr6QpuZCBfTWd/rjvgbnWIf0FbbZeUsITomOvMplXfJvLCtu2LD3XuM0R2Kg41DBIxJ9NrzcY=
X-Received: by 10.84.68.7 with SMTP id k7mr6490339oiw.118.1521457464072; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 04:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.74.7.27 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 04:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <SN1PR08MB1854485BF319264F51D208C3DAD40@SN1PR08MB1854.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CA+9kkMB7awRfW9jUmY9Q-1p+w3VLtpG5DxhF3s7Q58nEMZeX3w@mail.gmail.com> <20180318164307.GB6724@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <CAOdDvNr1GstB+g3pYi4w0bXuQ=Nz8HqgTRfWUX9TGu9YAYiz0w@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMA733q3BPRbnN++0vwKrmOOCN8SBgknYwFaeEf2cvYikw@mail.gmail.com> <88AB1743-7270-4D72-8C70-0AB6B74416BD@icann.org> <SN1PR08MB1854485BF319264F51D208C3DAD40@SN1PR08MB1854.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 04:03:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMAZCsUaE4+-5RNt=0e0fO1P5b3WPbAuHNZ1W0sPoMkRrw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4f5e808e574afe0da0567c1eb51"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/ucH0kqYXneTbkAISBxe4VV7DM-0>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] A question on the mix of DNS and HTTP semantics
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 11:04:28 -0000

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:42 AM, Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>; wrote:

> There's a reasonable argument that if Content-Type is
> application/dns-udpwireformat, it should be processed by the DNS client
> regardless of the HTTP status code.  (And that a 200 with any other
> Content-Type is an error.)
>
>
I think this makes sense.

Ted


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doh <doh-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:13 AM
> To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>;
> Cc: DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>;
> Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] A question on the mix of DNS and HTTP semantics
>
> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
> > The message body may not be able to answer this question completely, but
> it can clarify at the DNS level that this was REFUSED.  The semantics of
> that are much closer to 451's meaning than producing no DNS-level response
> at all (which maps to "query did not complete" if I understand it
> correctly).
>
> Hopping up one level, I think you are describing a DOH server that
> inspects queries or responses and chooses to change the HTTP response to
> use a non-2xx code. That seems fine, but it also seems like you are saying
> that the DNS response inside that HTTP response should be understood by the
> client, and in a code-specific way. Is that a fair summary?
>
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> Doh mailing list
> Doh@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
>