Re: [DNSOP] Alternate proposal for transport indication in draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Given the use case in draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http, defining
> a new media type seems like overkill, particularly given that it will
> be transporting *the exact same* data as an existing media type.
> Instead, an optional parameter could be added to the
> application/dns-udpwireformat registration in the DOH document.
>
> Proposal:
>
> =====
>
> In the media type definition, change "Optional parameters" to:
>
> Optional parameters: original_transport original_transport has two
> defined values, "udp" and "tcp". This is only expected to be used by
> servers.

s/servers/proxies/

> Also in the the DOH document, under Operational Considerations, we
> would add:
>
> This protocol does not define any use for the original_transport
> optional parameter of the application/dns-udpwireformat media type.
>
> =====
>
> Then draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http could define the use of
> that optional parameter as it sees fit.

so this would look like

content-type: application/dns-udpwireformat; tcp

?

-- 
P Vixie