IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 28 September 2011 21:03 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 48EE41F0D19; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1317243831; bh=NyTrtApfpa6HSKtMGm2dqoMkZz4YDqsyzl1PEdlCEQQ=; 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:Sender; b=KxQm2s37o/eWGVVeVLrdQc1FwtiEVppRdrAFVWSAkvQv2grITkkjR9LqoJ1Jy+81M Dp5muBQhieQNwsVqNva5TgTh6QjAPWe99uO7aGcbgbK29j+SSUr8f1LdD3R9lPh+3M cW3oqQmFgEyTOODN6EdH2/vTJUlCZUQz2wn2BSmk=
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 2D9A71F0D19 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 30Imz5PCnvWQ for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yi0-f44.google.com (mail-yi0-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 815951F0CD2 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yic13 with SMTP id 13so8062263yic.31 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:06:38 -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; bh=i2yASxxcrszn7Jh2KUt7VPqMZsgcCOk7yxpXAz6Svzg=; b=GveLsSsCENqSJUFtzqUiyf2mH4YbmE+lcKeh4QPKHxNH3mJEREhM0K5CSTx9RiV1Ps Ub8wBkJxXmNYgZjKtBWB6QPJjMi8SyFQXPWLhh8wa3ZOQxW0Lya09Ub2WzR9kDoB4wyC U2Do4sS4p8A4PkYxjDNTOGL1jUqzYXeVJxQjI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.187.36 with SMTP id x24mr58713115yhm.74.1317243998509; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.105.169 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACU5sDnBx5AijEgFXKNPjtcVdtBnBJamsn-f_ye0Jm3TQq0mvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACU5sDnBx5AijEgFXKNPjtcVdtBnBJamsn-f_ye0Jm3TQq0mvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:06:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMAozdS=F8FF5SRz0gTCfz7nXch578ZtU7pi25NYwB=8-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Mohan Parthasarathy <suruti94@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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3422078959056890370=="
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

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]
?

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.

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.

NIT: You cite RFC 2396, but the current reference is RFC 3986

regards,

Ted Hardie


On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Mohan Parthasarathy <suruti94@gmail.com>wrote;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