- From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:11:17 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 8/3/16 7:09 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> On 3 Aug 2016, at 2:39 AM, 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. > > +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. tim
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2016 12:14:55 UTC