Re: [dnsext] draft-mohan-dns-query-xml-00.txt

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
> Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why not re-use the syntax of RFC4501 for the query? [...] It's also not
>> clear why you need an XML-based representation, rather than using a
>> mime-type like that set out in RFC 4027 (which uses detached domain name
>> information as set out in RFC 2540).  Even if those need updating, it's
>> not clear to me what you're gaining with the use of XML here.
>
> I agree with these suggestions and questions.
>
> I don't understand the interoperability argument. The software that will
> be producing and consuming this data is DNS software that already has
> parsers for binary DNS data, and doesn't have serializers or parsers for
> XML. Binary data is also much more friendly for mobile endpoints.
> Interoperability with non-DNS software should be handled by a separate
> gateway that doesn't put a disgustingly wasteful pessimization in the fast
> path.
>

We started with XML and then came JSON and we have the third format
for consideration :-) We should just use the right one at the end. DNS software
is going to use a different API to retrieve the HTTP response which hopefully
will work fine when it sees a new MIME type. How about if I am using wireshark ?
Would XML/JSON make a difference until someone writes a plugin ? How about
the server side plugin that wants to encode the response ? Would one be easier
over the other. Perhaps, there are other factors.

> Is this draft going to specify how to get the complete DNSSEC validation
> chain, or is that going to be specified elsewhere? Google Chrome already
> implements a format for embedding validation chains in X.509 certificates
> which is binary but sadly does not use standard DNS message format.
>
Very good point. As written, it just encodes a single response. But it
should be easy
to extend this ask for a "chain" and the server plugin can build a
chain (to a known
trust anchor that has to be communicated ? ) and return it. We reduce
a lot of latency.
Is that what you meant ?

-mohan

> Tony.
> --
> f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
> Viking: Southerly 4 or 5, occasionally 6 in northeast. Moderate. Mainly fair.
> Good, occasionally poor.
>
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext