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

Mukund Sivaraman <muks@mukund.org> Fri, 08 June 2018 10:11 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 BB495130E58 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2018 03:11:10 -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 hglYA1YeAPxV for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2018 03:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.banu.com (mail.banu.com [IPv6:2a01:4f8:140:644b::225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B01A12F18C for <doh@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jun 2018 03:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jurassic (unknown [182.156.107.28]) (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 F37D432C0AC6; Fri, 8 Jun 2018 10:11:05 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 15:41:02 +0530
From: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@mukund.org>
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Cc: bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>, Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
Message-ID: <20180608101102.GA12334@jurassic>
References: <20180606093212.GA23880@server.ds9a.nl> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806061501340.10764@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <F5774061-35B9-477F-ADDA-8BB3472F30EF@icann.org> <CAOdDvNq9g3ghbg9fkfhP+ZA4-6E5oDNFCGo6NN9bydqUX76cLA@mail.gmail.com> <20180607093647.GB32326@server.ds9a.nl> <CAOdDvNriZDjU9yqUQjqN4fO84ENPWO3si-QePiKRgt+7VJVK0g@mail.gmail.com> <23321.27027.73356.94056@gro.dd.org> <CAOdDvNr=kLHPCtCHRx4=rpA1oDogQqdAJ0nR156BWABiFP_bzA@mail.gmail.com> <20180607215851.GA32738@server.ds9a.nl> <CAOdDvNqNpZ8fKPCO5sEqjROBHjg4wx-GGPMYSSynode10jeC0Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNqNpZ8fKPCO5sEqjROBHjg4wx-GGPMYSSynode10jeC0Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/xzkZ28H1S9T-WvmgOqDiIHpYLrw>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] 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: Fri, 08 Jun 2018 10:11:11 -0000

On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 11:34:19AM +0200, Patrick McManus wrote:
> I'm not on board with limiting a 2018 protocol to 64KB variants because
> some parser of some some format might have a bug.

It's not "some parser".. for a long time implementations have assumed
64kB for message formats and these are implicit assumptions. It isn't
reasonable to alter this now. RFC 1035 is from 1987 and these implicit
assumptions have remained so for the last 30 years.

It is ok if you want to prepare different rules in 2018, but please
don't call it DNS.

		Mukund