[dnsoverhttp] RFC 4501 vs. draft-hoffman-dns-over-http
Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> Mon, 03 April 2017 20:56 UTC
Return-Path: <bemasc@google.com>
X-Original-To: dnsoverhttp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsoverhttp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E461294FB for <dnsoverhttp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a1EZMYoJb11l for <dnsoverhttp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x230.google.com (mail-io0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96A191293F9 for <dnsoverhttp@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x230.google.com with SMTP id l7so83642410ioe.3 for <dnsoverhttp@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 13:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=JNUZhRc4oZMwAYnAHNCvJJLdDolP6EPA+KWzKICc7EY=; b=sPbi8dvRomVwjM8yEnSj0ubCbb9m5dvQWqivbh+cw/4RNWPbZFJJ5H3V/ZPUlF7ftC Bfzn3Zss+FxPdfRoCrK8j6DiwRXxp3toNw7fBqql92U3XK19BDxH7eZqZgbJ9n+pD2Ic k2uYECisN8ehheaVzfw7N5h82AR/6dGUzabHkyx0t7vd0EZMsG56FVE7HWVTZo7q+T2R dILGimRGwKtMyhbEh6PYCym803yr3yMd19BEFnSxv5Gr1bO+HzCjVq1ZxaS2u9sJvs3j xgWhV2ONKoJDtMwJqN5qe/FMyTqIVGTViMxQpIbcN2R3k/kZ5YWtM3rjZyQEC24lqckW dnEw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=JNUZhRc4oZMwAYnAHNCvJJLdDolP6EPA+KWzKICc7EY=; b=JMZh5BxAF0UyAZ0ItKctneVLE1l4iAokKcXKjoxMPDMsrWmoldcADgKo6LVKP7AEwe KkZmJB++fjgogmlTWf60AKlc9U0FQd2K2ny/MoiqN0guITieA5shT5TjfX1OTfU/Vqru 3aap0+OB+U75e8XyxpdjjUkcQIUgi+bRAjEPjFSIQfQ9Wmq05kOd1VauhUTzESdNfs6M FeHa3t043UBMnVVxvA2zxHBZuop9ShINBd1UzyvWT22ik93c3sEI64/IYjVZPUxvxhWT ezQPQbsYfPFuD/bbalXfbvqkRTg2AzVtxE3Uq8VKd/pAn7rl1DqOXi/dFxavz3FQxHUy W14A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3gJUZvVXB0X3PFXAtESlt3/phV6TsvC+yPmJwt0HdCjnUgQi6EX9Z83blWBjOkbMn2BbD2u2ef1wwphr4C
X-Received: by 10.107.164.36 with SMTP id n36mr17692611ioe.103.1491252957726; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 13:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.7.207 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 16:55:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbrMsCuk4Qo8atv2T7pHHfDGn+amh5fjgsDPgDM+soKxu0-1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: dnsoverhttp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="001a114220acd54de2054c496236"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsoverhttp/VN3Pi42C5aj5PnTG5ak8yw_D7aU>
Subject: [dnsoverhttp] RFC 4501 vs. draft-hoffman-dns-over-http
X-BeenThere: dnsoverhttp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of DNS over HTTP <dnsoverhttp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsoverhttp>, <mailto:dnsoverhttp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsoverhttp/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsoverhttp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsoverhttp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsoverhttp>, <mailto:dnsoverhttp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 20:56:00 -0000
I noticed that draft-hoffman-dns-over-http doesn't mention RFC 4501. Does anyone (especially the authors) know why that is? It occurs to me that using RFC 4501 (dns:...) URIs could have advantages for caching, whereas using an https:// URI makes deployment easier on existing servers. I wonder if there are other considerations? --Ben
- [dnsoverhttp] RFC 4501 vs. draft-hoffman-dns-over… Ben Schwartz
- Re: [dnsoverhttp] [Ext] RFC 4501 vs. draft-hoffma… Paul Hoffman