Re: [Driu] [DNSOP] SRV and HTTP

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 11 July 2018 01:30 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: driu@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: driu@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101A9130E9E; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 18:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 W0BTN5dMyGL7; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 18:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08C37129C6A; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 18:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E824C3AB043; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 01:30:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3D2C160072; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 01:30:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FB1D16006B; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 01:30:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id W4OLdSWo7R8c; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 01:30:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.30.42.67] (c27-253-115-14.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [27.253.115.14]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0AB5016006A; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 01:30:22 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <F6C1AF50-EB1B-4E09-9A72-229AD4AC7E57@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 11:30:20 +1000
Cc: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>, dnsop@ietf.org, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, driu@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <82099DED-CCB6-4CDC-BFE6-97B1AB3EB0A4@isc.org>
References: <m1fcoe5-0000GuC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1807101056140.5219@bofh.nohats.ca> <4a845808-5348-d6e4-dda2-59aaf0e85c14@nostrum.com> <3DF5A66C-CCBF-4116-A1FC-35CF8E05808B@hopcount.ca> <e1675184-f0bc-670d-3db1-b99a9daf1657@nostrum.com> <CAJhMdTOZtOpF_aK-ZzP0DfkDMcAtTKFLdSpKkrSPvP1cOgnOjQ@mail.gmail.com> <e658445a-242b-5f94-f1fc-0bc4c850319d@nostrum.com> <CAJhMdTOPjhbOK=NQijnYZ3kCY_+f-87n7wwwuR38ifHUG5msqA@mail.gmail.com> <F6C1AF50-EB1B-4E09-9A72-229AD4AC7E57@mnot.net>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/driu/H4PUou1KcjpzxFOcvhggO6JPFqU>
Subject: Re: [Driu] [DNSOP] SRV and HTTP
X-BeenThere: driu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "DNS Resolver Identification and Use \(DRIU\)." <driu.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/driu>, <mailto:driu-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/driu/>
List-Post: <mailto:driu@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:driu-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/driu>, <mailto:driu-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 01:30:27 -0000


> On 11 Jul 2018, at 11:22 am, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>; wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 11 Jul 2018, at 3:55 am, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>; wrote:
>> 
>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 18:02, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:
>> 
>>> In large part because DNS provides "a richer scheme that accommodates address families and multiple addresses with priorities".
>> 
>> *cups hand to ear*
>> 
>> Was that the sound of a distant desire to specify use of SRV for HTTP?
>> 
> 
> I recently did some digging on this topic, and can try to characterise what the issues / objections are.

I think there are three main objections.

1) Wildcards don’t work with prefixes.
2) Additional data isn’t always returned it may require multiple round trips.
3) Additional data processing doesn’t support negative responses.

All of these issues are trivially easy to fix.  It just require willingness to implement.

1) is addressed by defining a new type(s) rather than using prefixes.
2) is addressed by getting recursive servers to fill in missing additional data before returning.  Named has code in review for this for SRV as proof of concept.
3) is addressed by adding some signalling between the client and recursive server to indicate if the additional section is complete or not.


> Would people be interested in a (hopefully brief) side meeting to discuss and maybe come to a shared understanding of the problem space?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org