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

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

On 22 September 2016 at 11:32, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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?

That's where I think we have a disconnect on use cases.  I want to
make DNS more accessible to application developers.  I think that some
others want to take advantage of the fact that no middlebox dares to
break HTTP.  The wire format in antithetical to my goal.  My thesis is
that if we have the wire format, there's no incentive to do the other
thing.

>> 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.

The activity on this list leads me to conclude that this is a
temporary situation.  And "experimental" is not doing this justice; if
someone wants to deploy this for realsies - and that seems like it has
some decent chance of happening - then it's worth doing the protocol
for realsies too.

> 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.

I have to disagree about this being small.  Done right, this could be
a big deal.