IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Wessels, Duane" <dwessels@verisign.com> Mon, 03 October 2011 15:51 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 2416821F8BC4; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1317657097; bh=bsOSx+NkULamUJ5OdP1da067nwwuRuA1a7OuBzRPJkA=; 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=r4FpF+NrZe59AfJCCa0Q7kI2o25F5nl5oLs9sggG2wRUOLgmZVfsqbZ9fyW3Lo+Mw ejE4X5eYcOoZpblpY/YtliKt5KuGGt4zm3yXZNkkv2vnV1Is6dR9cBAiAi6Q9xj6dH bg7T90TZcm3+CDVYuwewKjTz9eDupH38nBTb3kaU=
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 C22B121F8BC4 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:51:35 -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 WgXEzAR9zTUG for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod6og106.obsmtp.com (exprod6og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.191]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 077B221F8BC3 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob106.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 08:54:38 PDT
Received: from dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.138]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id p93FsSQR023164; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:54:28 -0400
Received: from mail.labs.vrsn.com ([10.173.152.121]) by dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:54:27 -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 B7CA91BC8CA; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:54:27 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: "Wessels, Duane" <dwessels@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <201110010458.26859.vixie@isc.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:54:24 -0700
Message-Id: <8F26AB69-C5BD-47BD-B3F4-6D840E419A23@verisign.com>
References: <CACU5sDnBx5AijEgFXKNPjtcVdtBnBJamsn-f_ye0Jm3TQq0mvw@mail.gmail.com> <0394FB3B-6C2B-4D47-B1FA-AA54B7EB1053@kirei.se> <DDD7529C-9EF3-427F-AF90-2872CCD71ECF@cisco.com> <201110010458.26859.vixie@isc.org>
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2011 15:54:27.0974 (UTC) FILETIME=[BB2D5A60:01CC81E4]
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 Sep 30, 2011, at 9:58 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:

> I like the binary format first proposed here by Edmonds.

I also like that format. 

> 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.

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email