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

On 8/3/16 7:09 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> On 3 Aug 2016, at 2:39 AM, Martin Thomson <> 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.
> +1.
> Would DNSOP consider alternative approaches if they were submitted soonish, or are you committed to using this document as a starting point?

Alternative Approaches are always welcome.


Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2016 12:14:55 UTC