IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sat, 01 October 2011 15:22 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 6681721F9206; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1317482560; bh=zHuwoRquJfQmZt6S8dRlo4Wk0JTP71wcu/d44qaouoI=; 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=rmxYsKcwGtCe/LcUAu5nahKtp0va93NQW0ex3RX9hlgxMqviCGUC3Zj1D4O90E35u 3BqtBN78CxxrwPT5yUv4myFJWCvd4Pg6sgXkwtz13HpNphoWdi8CbkRoy5i72KNYGQ QUzL91CWV7sy/JCVMAWbWbdO0vcN6vvHoIAJW1ZA=
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 0A00A21F9206 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.57
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 gwH--IKwUHSK for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797AE21F9200 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.100] (50-0-66-4.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.0.66.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p91FPXGD054842 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:25:33 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <D3890C96-DA07-4BA1-AB57-1A81EA2ED477@icsi.berkeley.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:25:33 -0700
Message-Id: <5C4E07BC-E6CC-45A6-8018-10C2A799A55E@vpnc.org>
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> <D3890C96-DA07-4BA1-AB57-1A81EA2ED477@icsi.berkeley.edu>
To: Nicholas Weaver <nweaver@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
Cc: DNSEXT Working Group <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 1, 2011, at 8:01 AM, Nicholas Weaver wrote:

> Web caches don't work.  

+1.

> In our experience, nearly 50% of those in Netalyzr tests cache things they shouldn't, so if the worry is cache-staleness, include a cache-buster.

-.5. You are assuming that a bad HTTP cache will be bad in a predictable fashion. I'm not against using nonces to bust caches, but I don't think we should rely on it.

> But you don't need to use POST to get through the bustedness if the URLs can have nonces in them.

True, but is there really any disadvantage to using POST in the design?

My sense is that we will get less HTTP caching with POST than we would with GET-with-nonce, but I have no data to back that up.

--Paul Hoffman

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email