Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] FW: New Version Notification for draft-mglt-dprive-dns-uri-00.txt

Thanks Paul for the comment. I guess the reason for overkill is that too
many schemes are created. The reason for underspecified is that the
proposed doh scheme only reflects a subset of the parameters provided by a
uri template.  On the other hand I understand that parameters of the URI
template should not be provided as part of the URI scheme. Am I correct ?

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:35 PM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:

> On Mar 19, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What that suggests is, if you really believe the trade-off to focus on
> specific servers and non-standard ports is critical, that you should mint a
> single URI scheme for the purpose, with a mandatory paramater that lists
> the transports .  I would personally still feel that was heading this in
> the wrong direction, but it would avoid some of the worst questions about
> equivalence.
> >
>
> +1. This proposal really seems like both overkill and underspecified. For
> the latter, note that DoH allows multiple formats for the queries and
> responses, but that is not (AND SHOULD NOT) be specified in the proposed
> "doh:".
>
> Instead, it is fine to have a short document that says little more than
> "clients that know multiple ways of making DNS requests might try multiple
> transports when acting on a 'dns:' URI".
>
>
Is your suggestion to have a parameter that indicates the use of (tls?,
dot, doh) ?

> --Paul Hoffman_______________________________________________
> dns-privacy mailing list
> dns-privacy@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
>

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson