IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 29 September 2011 11:01 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 D866821F8D8A; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1317294090; bh=rfT9HSonrN0S3yUqvJgNVEFvNdGbTSfVt/koMlk85IA=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=hXqKg5rWhGB3APhLtcGJ7llycboh2hkz0xM5gLijxunQKSASCe1Tzt8EvBtw5G19Z eFkQKCK6fpibup9EdyglR61n6ac/IMlHpH7GU7QgnOMT+QM62aDkUShNUyUTHALO0N OwGFwsM7m679veKKGw1i1Ca93qLylKIKqtGnnhH8=
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 E810821F8D8A for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.584
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 OPEmIwNAC4rP for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB7F521F8D70 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:45455) by ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1R9EPV-0008TJ-Fp (Exim 4.72) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:04:13 +0100
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1R9EPV-0008QY-Sq (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:04:13 +0100
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:04:13 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAozdS=F8FF5SRz0gTCfz7nXch578ZtU7pi25NYwB=8-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1109291153110.30178@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <CACU5sDnBx5AijEgFXKNPjtcVdtBnBJamsn-f_ye0Jm3TQq0mvw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMAozdS=F8FF5SRz0gTCfz7nXch578ZtU7pi25NYwB=8-Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

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.

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.

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email