Re: [dnsoverhttp] New draft: draft-hoffman-dns-over-http-00.txt

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 21, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 22 September 2016 at 01:12, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Joe and I purposely kept this document agnostic to the response format. There will be different formats for different use cases, as Shane's draft shows.
> 
> I think that would be a mistake.  Pick one and polish it.

Sorry, this just feels wrong. For example, why should a DNS application have to add a JSON processor that it will never use if it wants to get responses in DNS wire format?

> 
>>> The JSON format is somewhat in the right
>>> direction, but it needs a lot of work (this is my go native comment,
>>> consistent with your stated goal to be native).
>> 
>> As a side note, I'm in an informal "last call" for draft-hoffman-dns-in-json with the intention of sending it to the ISE for Experimental status in a few weeks. There is some traffic about that on the DNSOP WG mailing list, and I'm happy to take offline comments as well. I'll be putting out a revised version in the next few days.
> 
> Why do I hear so much about the ISE with these things?

Because it's an experimental document and no obvious WG to discuss it in.

>  This seems
> like work that a working group should take on.  I'll be that we could
> have a working group pretty quickly if it came to that.

If you want to find an AD who wants to sponsor this, great. At that point, it could go on standards track. To me, this is asking the IESG to do much more work than it needs to for a fairly small document.

> Frankly, I don't think that the JSON spec is anywhere near as ready as
> your proposed protocol spec, so I'm surprised to hear you want to push
> it out with an RFC number on it.

As I keep saying, I'm quite open to comments on it. I've gotten plenty from the DNS community over the past few years, but we could have missed stuff you're seeing.

--Paul Hoffman