IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mohan Parthasarathy <suruti94@gmail.com> Wed, 28 September 2011 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17CE921F8C1A; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1317246417; bh=ZkDiznizNqdghZB93efxVc2yTSvfbdEucjnA5rl0bxM=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:From:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=R0+11fQxF0ND4uNgDY4LzdAUsXf90708t6gneDW/LLEAIUg0pDjSrh432oXI3q15U PS5i70CYauEll7iTV2ht9PSMjK03FXrUvWsbHNHcOgEcX4EOD79Z6gLfnU5QTXhUYp 2rORTwwxodV3p4Gor8L6EzNp9H7xcfaOiK4A50dY=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D9E21F8C1A for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NQWgqDL-M31S for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9A321F8C0F for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxt33 with SMTP id 33so46938yxt.31 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pBxnyPYE+IfKfCXQjoGlncd/x+U8aNoy2GcPdQmvpO4=; b=hvOBvzij4rVyqPVzbSfFhVPWxEbPshtUmzJCMbckmBPg9Pl19HpzGjViV/i71mfTLt kbfAeEbrICUPpm0QW3wxT+hLZ5MuLBXfPTpWPa+bd9w8Ka4+pCxdBc2ncGlDz7Ayhx6Y k5fKx3RI364aHcdhDndi5iA3MXmTWD8iu8adY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.9.104 with SMTP id y8mr46580011pba.21.1317246583642; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.46.200 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAozdS=F8FF5SRz0gTCfz7nXch578ZtU7pi25NYwB=8-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACU5sDnBx5AijEgFXKNPjtcVdtBnBJamsn-f_ye0Jm3TQq0mvw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMAozdS=F8FF5SRz0gTCfz7nXch578ZtU7pi25NYwB=8-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:49:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CACU5sDnRBuKGNvnjOeV9J9W1sMpL8TAx=RK+_mLbgngqtoPL_g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mohan Parthasarathy <suruti94@gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>, dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-mohan-dns-query-xml-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I have a few questions on this proposal.
>
> Why not re-use the syntax of RFC4501 for the query?  That is:
> https://relayingwebserver.example.com/query.cgi?dns:[//authority/]domain[?CLASS=class;TYPE=type]
> ?
>
We should definitely study that for the next revision. We need to be
able to specify more than what is given in RFC 4501. Is that
extensible ?

> Declaring a namespace for the xml is generally good practice.  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.
>

We chose XML because it is readily available and also better inter-operability.

> It seems like you're wanting this to be used when CD bit is set to 1; any
> reason why you'd want to support this for CD bit set to 0?
> In general, I think a little bit more wording on when this tunneling would
> be used would be really useful to flesh out when this is needed.
>
Yes, the main use case is DNSSEC. Does it make sense to restrict to just that ?

> NIT: You cite RFC 2396, but the current reference is RFC 3986
>
Will fix that.

thanks
mohan

> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Mohan Parthasarathy <suruti94@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> DNSSEC validation is stub resolver is dependent on DNSSEC-aware CPEs,
>> recursive servers etc. Here is a draft that we submitted yesterday to
>> address this problem.
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mohan-dns-query-xml-00.txt
>>
>> Please send your comments/feedback to the list.
>>
>> thanks
>> -mohan
>> _______________________________________________
>> dnsext mailing list
>> dnsext@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>
>
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email