IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] Use of TXT records

Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> Fri, 15 March 2019 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <bemasc@google.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 0387E130EFE for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 vPAfqFQF8QvD for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x943.google.com (mail-ua1-x943.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::943]) (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 900E1130E5B for <doh@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x943.google.com with SMTP id s26so3467960uao.9 for <doh@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZDNS01ZTGjojLrN8DVes1UPEhZZiUuErWYbOrECw3Xo=; b=b5N5ILyvHkTjZ8/5LJYseZ5ycIbaQZ72jCQ548AOxObyBO8RrJivMNPYCU4dZr+qIB GQUMOjkXewDcXRHkb7LsEbjUu/QMGGVPN51TmElldPWf4iGitUJJInuERbdKap2hPIwY NlbZHzmfJBCqjEk6pUwCbSu4Q1GtV/cWI2rz+bQwqs5pSYviuVvHS/1hdoCaSQKeJn3w siLKqgpgT/V0rakBfoGdheYtW9KlWOxVpguj5+n7zNzxPWybnUiHLX6okMUQF4G0ZP+u 21l0JVdFiFq7dGl9vIk2qhkUwGDKdt3L9uq/jcm+a6i4A9HnHRcioz5NIyN9au2MHqTS nIvQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZDNS01ZTGjojLrN8DVes1UPEhZZiUuErWYbOrECw3Xo=; b=H2WbmZyQsy199xMp7JhxPXMuCxaazNzoYyxtzYQ7j9p/pDr2ynhZhozz3Eteur5New V+7zFhhyb5Clv3w5EDAkq8yfhtmbEWjw8lWgrDdtw/NcyPpI8VHCliiaQ+wjYdHYASQP +BlNlUb0p2aPnBbWbdx+9vAUjYZ4sbQ3adYg1Aogcjy9Qti32BPWeeAsV+L86q+yYZPv F7nQGnHOVe5ji/peSKh7fQS1OQ6uHy98b3jlNVzw1bsa0GQv/JdVjhABaojpmKit/aj+ CbSZeHFskv8JbBlZKq6JDGoTPfcp9ydk0VMVYCKslTqyMTqAatTX7GUpUlruD1ECdKDd 8/TQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXPZemVmqAokqIp4FESV8kaC8NsjuolmwzVwX7zae9SGktpTzAq vpJO1csb0y6EFP6wr1KINynPpPaLVvzWzOHsy0IqNA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxhzK7VTuwPxjSKGvPvKk2991LA81vrX7NfrRVG41EEz3rhbBTUPNV39T6ab14O7DiiVgTnNVg79nA2weej1kM=
X-Received: by 2002:a9f:3381:: with SMTP id p1mr587769uab.140.1552677870178; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHbrMsCNyeabhk0sVexOHVedVkgG2dvV9T8wWL++om5juAUvEw@mail.gmail.com> <D6D473EB-666A-45B1-9A59-0A7548E0A4DE@icann.org> <CAHbrMsDypWpr4Wz1VDtBhmoiZDTt=NrkK-9T15y69doz1CHA4Q@mail.gmail.com> <0e842b1edfe44bd69e1188e72b8f3873@ustx2ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <0e842b1edfe44bd69e1188e72b8f3873@ustx2ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com>
From: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 15:24:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbrMsAs+3rggoe8vNxjoFz5e+ziFFJG3rjpk8L9dZOVOoCfDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Hewitt, Rory" <rhewitt@akamai.com>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="000000000000ef6d4f058426fc5e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/y6Bbx9Q4mG0TV17BBlo1M-zdKmU>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Use of TXT records
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 15 Mar 2019 19:24:35 -0000

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:57 PM Hewitt, Rory <rhewitt@akamai.com> wrote:

> Ben,
>
>
>
> How has the use of TXT been a point of controversy in the past?
>

See for example
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/b0DQpCStJ4RSlp7uVXSobS-ssjA


> Is it a general "TXT records are bad" or "Adding new TXT records is bad"
> or "TXT records have never been standardized or formatted consistently
> among their various uses, so there's always the possibility of clashes".
>

My understanding is that some DNS experts believe that TXT records should
be reserved for human-readable comments, while others believe that it is
more expedient to store data in TXT records than to define a new RRTYPE for
each new usage.


> Because I, for one, would agree with the last.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 15, 2019 9:53 AM
> *To:* Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
> *Cc:* DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Doh] Use of TXT records
>
>
>
> To be clear, I'm not objecting to this choice.  I'm merely noting that use
> of TXT has been a point of controversy in other discussions at the IETF.
> Some groups have decided to proceed with TXT, some have preferred to use
> different or new RRTYPEs, and some have not yet decided.  I would like the
> working group to consider this question soon so it doesn't delay consensus
> later.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:27 PM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
> wrote:
>
> On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:12 AM, Ben Schwartz <
> bemasc=40google.com@dmarc.ietf..org> wrote:
> > 5. Machine-readable content in a TXT record
>
> This is the first I had heard that people objected to using a TXT record,
> but I might have missed that part of the discussion. Given that this query
> is for a newly-created SUDN that is only used for looking up DoH
> information, there is no chance that the TXT record would be in use for
> anything else.
>
> Having said that, it would be quite easy for this document to create a new
> RRtype for this particular query. (I would not want to re-use the URI
> RRtype because it would take more effort to explain the priority and
> weight, as well as dealing with the common error of people not put the URI
> in quotations marks as is required for the URI RRtype.)
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email