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

[Alex Bligh <[e-mail]>]

--On 3 October 2011 18:16:32 +0000 Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:

> i'm not sure i've seen 64KB URL's.  i have seen 64KB UPDATE's.  but it's
> not  the size that concerns me, rather the content-aware routers out
> there who may  or may not respect our http cacheability headers.

I would also bet money that application layer interceptors of http
traffic are more likely to fail on 64KB GET URLs than 64KB POST.

I presume we could base64 encode POST data if we couldn't send it
binary, whereas IIRC we couldn't do much more than hex encode GET URLs.

So +1 for POST here, with body content as close to UDP message format
as possible, save that we should surely be able to junk a pile of UDP
restrictions (e.g. we can surely mandate EDNS, assume 'packet' size
can 2^32 bytes, etc.). I presume we also don't need UDP headers etc.

-- 
Alex Bligh
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext