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

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 26, 2018, at 7:08 AM, Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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/

Maybe? I can't tell from the current draft if a proxy client would need to send a transport type.


>> 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

Not quite.
   content-type: application/dns-udpwireformat; original_transport=tcp

--Paul Hoffman