Re: Call for Adoption: draft-song-dns-wireformat-http

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

"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 <> 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 <>
> Date: Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 6:33 PM
> Subject: Call for Adoption: draft-song-dns-wireformat-http
> To: dnsop <>
> This starts an official Call for Adoption for
>          draft-song-dns-wireformat-http
> The draft is available here:
> 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