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

Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org> Sat, 01 October 2011 14:42 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 F234621F93D9; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 07:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1317480167; bh=XBUBTn05zM5P8XeG8tTdW2cTV7fw+EhCDsjFRkyuCB8=; h=From:To:Date:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-Id: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=JBilQC5WDTCmKnN9tWibT7vz4S8kQOJ+Z7Qx/96pAeBtP8vbS6YPsLwHSLaI1rTke U3S42FNl/j10QrefRYVI0X7pWMW8g+KGyxPzH3VX5bpZUh8o353zFCHOZkUYV9qUbV FWqpvWF+3zLiEUKVPwv6JK5MtIX8Y73e2lUGdjjU=
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 C007B21F85F7 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 21:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 B-Jjbg8efTlw for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 21:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ss.vix.com (ss.vix.com [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cb::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E40921F85F2 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 21:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at redbarn.org
Received: from ww.vix.com (ww.vix.com [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cb:215:17ff:fed4:730a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ss.vix.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49A2FEE515 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 04:58:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vixie@isc.org)
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
Organization: Internet Systems Consortium
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 04:58:26 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.1-RELEASE; KDE/4.4.5; amd64; ; )
References: <CACU5sDnBx5AijEgFXKNPjtcVdtBnBJamsn-f_ye0Jm3TQq0mvw@mail.gmail.com> <0394FB3B-6C2B-4D47-B1FA-AA54B7EB1053@kirei.se> <DDD7529C-9EF3-427F-AF90-2872CCD71ECF@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <DDD7529C-9EF3-427F-AF90-2872CCD71ECF@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <201110010458.26859.vixie@isc.org>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 07:42:45 -0700
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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

Checking back in on this discussion after several days of watching it run.

On Friday, September 30, 2011 06:36:11 am Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 30 sep 2011, at 00:21, Jakob Schlyter wrote:
> > I would prefer a RESTful API where the response data format is dependent
> > on the HTTP accept headers. Using such an API, one could receive various
> > formats, e.g., XML, JSON or plain old DNS wire format. A DNS client in
> > Javascript would probably like JSON, a libresolv-like DNS library would
> > like wire format and someone else (although I fail to see who) might
> > prefer XML.
> 
> My claim/feelings/religious view is that JSON is so much better than XML
> when coming to the kind of usage we talk about.
> 
> So if _one_ format is to be used, please choose JSON and not XML.

I like the binary format first proposed here by Edmonds.  I'm not as sure 
about Jakob's "use the accept headers to determine the format" idea since the 
only reason I wanted a printable format was so I could debug with "telnet".  
All clients, even those written in javascript, already know how to handle 
"plain old DNS wire format".  I truly do only expect this transport to be used 
when the normal UDP/53 and TCP/53 paths are middlebox-corrupted.

Assuming that Mohan agrees with me on "just use wire format" in the response, 
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 
should be in DNS wire format.  This would defeat web caches but I think that's 
fine since I worry about web caches that don't understand DNS TTL and I worry 
even more about web caches that are intercepting rather than explicit.  POST 
is presumed by web caches to be unique data to which a unique response will be 
needed.

A side benefit of this is, the UPDATE opcode gets easy.

Feel free to respond 1x1, I would summarize.

Paul
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext