- From: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 20:47:01 -0400
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADyWQ+G+R6nCnz9EvDQgBGqtKmmM1zU2T8J_HQdTzD2zzGwjtg@mail.gmail.com>
Martin, I think one of the things which came up during the discussion was to drop port 80 all together. I'm circling back with the authors and I know we've covered this ground so I'll work with them to summarize. There was another draft which discussed various methods of DNS over HTTP https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shane-review-dns-over-http/ We didn't choose to put it up for adoption, but it may be worthy to merge some of that into this document. thanks tim On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 00:55:28 UTC