Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size

[Patrick McManus <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:17 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 07:10:18PM -0400, Patrick McManus wrote:
> > I believe the concern is "traditional -> doh -> doh" where the doh ->
> doh link
> > could use wireformat-64 and then the initial traditional client cannot
> consume
> > wireformat-64 but ends up with it anyhow. Is that right?
> >
> > That shouldn't happen. The middle node realizes it is a gateway for a
> > traditional client
>
> It's the part where the middle node _doesn't know_ it's a gateway for
> a "traditional client" that I've been worried about, because someone
> takes their existing code, plops an HTTPS transit on it, and thinks
> they're golden.


so that's a doh client, not a traditional client. And they would have to
opt into the wireformat-64 bits in my example explicitly with a request
header for a non default media type. At some point you have to give them
what they ask for :)



> I know Tale thinks I'm worrying about something that
> Shouldn't Happen, but I think experience tells us this kind of thing
> happens _all the time_ in poorly-constructed DNS implementations.
>
> In any case, I haven't read it carefully but my quick scan of what
> Paul sent to the list makes me think it's enough to prevent that naïve
> sort of implementation (or anyway, at least the document will have
> said it so that if you do the wrong thing it's obviously your own
> fault).
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Doh mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
>