IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Wessels, Duane" <dwessels@verisign.com> Mon, 03 October 2011 17:32 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 AEF9021F8B26; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1317663123; bh=M0ebCcbwFTOf2hycirAeF96sgLvCt5c0a25rpxrqnlk=; h=Mime-Version:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-Id:References:To:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=GDaGDAUNSN+gOIh17lf05GpU4cNiKfe/z5hvomApmaogjIbNXbZnDHc6GadWr/bjl qIBVtMpRqrcPaK5lYaNYUX/1u3eNvjy96lswjLeVBl/v9LfR7MwkquJZ7Fk5JS2Yg4 koxDmcBKObxCh015kbPN3Y3Ti10TuJ2iAfxy5+vg=
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 0392921F8B26 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 BdPnA2DvYWv3 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod6og101.obsmtp.com (exprod6og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BDB621F8B05 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob101.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:35:04 PDT
Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id p93HYt15026919; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:34:55 -0400
Received: from mail.labs.vrsn.com ([10.173.152.121]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:34:55 -0400
Received: from [10.100.1.22] (unknown [10.100.1.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.labs.vrsn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E061BC8CA; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:34:54 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: "Wessels, Duane" <dwessels@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <201110031713.20103.vixie@isc.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:34:48 -0700
Message-Id: <58EB32F9-08D2-4579-BC56-1423C00FC371@verisign.com>
References: <CACU5sDnBx5AijEgFXKNPjtcVdtBnBJamsn-f_ye0Jm3TQq0mvw@mail.gmail.com> <201110010458.26859.vixie@isc.org> <8F26AB69-C5BD-47BD-B3F4-6D840E419A23@verisign.com> <201110031713.20103.vixie@isc.org>
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2011 17:34:55.0613 (UTC) FILETIME=[C3EE12D0:01CC81F2]
Cc: 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

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

Robert's idea was to take a (binary) UDP message, express it in hex, and it
becomes the URL-pathname.  I don't see why you can't also do that with UPDATE.

(I'd add a message TCP-like length prefix, as you suggested, so the receiver
knows it got the whole thing).

Maybe your point is that URL length becomes a problem?  We've all seen
very long URLs I'm sure.  

Anyway, my preference for GET over POST is not that strong.

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email