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

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 3, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:

> On Monday, October 03, 2011 15:54:24 Wessels, Duane wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 2011, at 9:58 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>>> my observation is, we should not be using GET at all, nor should we be
>>> encoding the query into the URI.  We should use POST and our request body
>> 
>> I have a slight preference for GET over POST.  I find GET simpler to
>> implement (maybe code size isn't a concern) and probably more likely
>> to get through.  OTOH I also like that POST has the content-length
>> header.
> 
> what's your view of the need to someday express UPDATE, and to include future 
> extensions to QUERY (like more stuff in the additional section)?  if those 
> seem like worthwhile goals, then we really need to put the request into the 
> body rather than into the URI or into the http headers.  that calls for POST.

+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.

--Paul Hoffman

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