- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 10:39:50 +1000
- To: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
It would be really awesome if someone could summarize the reasons that the alternative proposals (those cited in the doc) were not adopted. I see a few red flags in the doc: "The protocol is intended to serve as a sort of DNS VPN" -- there's a long history of abuse of HTTP of exactly this form; probably because it's easier. See the above question regarding potentially better alternatives. "in this approach wire-format data is wrapped with a HTTP header and transmitted on port 80 or 443." -- two things: the wire format seems to go in the body; and using port 80 is a terrible idea. I don't see any reason that this needs to use a .well-known resource. What happens when you get a response where the ID doesn't match the request? On 3 August 2016 at 10:23, tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > Happy HTTP folks > > This draft came up in Buenos Aires and there was interest in the group from > contributing. I was double booked in Berlin and wasn't able to attend, but > mnot politely reminded me about this. > > The draft went through adoption and has been adopted by DNSOP. It's still > can be worked on, and any and all comments on the ideas etc would be happily > accepted. > > thanks > tim > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 6:33 PM > Subject: Call for Adoption: draft-song-dns-wireformat-http > To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org> > > > This starts an official Call for Adoption for > draft-song-dns-wireformat-http > > The draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-dns-wireformat-http/ > > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by > DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. > > Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc. > > We wanted this Call to coincide with the Berlin meeting so if there is > opinions that needed to be voiced, they can do so. > > This call for adoption ends: 25 July 2016 > > Thanks, > tim wicinski > DNSOP co-chair >
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2016 00:40:54 UTC