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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> +1. The slight increase in programming difficulty of using POST vs. GET
> buys you a huge amount of flexibility in queries. It's not just about
> cache-prevention.
>
>
All silver linings have their clouds...  The only unfortunate thing about
POST, in my view, is that the flexibility can trend you away from
interoperability as people add and change things at  different  speeds at
different hosts.  If you want standard behavior the descending list goes:
New Method, GET, POST, at least in my view.

Since new methods are notoriously hard to get deployed, POST seems like the
best choice if you want something that can handle any DNS operation.  If it
is meant to be only retrieval, then I would personally say that keeping it
within GET is the best choice.

I'm also increasingly of the opinion that this should have the validation
bits sets by default.  Allowing a web site to update the local DNS cache for
a client system by including a reference and a DNS result for the reference
causes my paranoia to ratchet up a few notches.  The only other defense
against it I see is using Web results only in same-origin web contexts, and
that's going to be very hard to make work.

Ted

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