Re: [Doh] DOH server on non-standard ports

[Mateusz Jończyk <[e-mail]>]

OK, but wouldn't it be beneficial to specify explicitly that DOH clients MUST
support accessing DOH servers on ports other then 443 - for compatibility reasons?

I would propose to add the following text:
	A DNS API server MAY work on a port other then 443 so all DNS API
	clients MUST support accessing DOH servers on ports other than 443.

at the end of section 4 "The HTTP Request".

Greetings,
Mateusz Jończyk

Patrick McManus on Wed, 04 April 2018 12:50 UTC wrote:
> neither https not uris are limited to any particular port. I don't see a
> problem here..
>
> W dniu 04.04.2018 o 12:58, Mateusz Jończyk pisze:
>> Hello,
>> I think that it may be beneficial to specify that a DOH server MAY work on a
>> port other than 443 and that the DOH client MUST support accessing DOH servers
>> on ports other than 443.
>> 
>> I have been thinking about the possibility of adding support for DOH to a home
>> router. In the future, someone may modify dnsmasq so that it would act as a DOH
>> server - dnsmasq could then run on this router and provide DOH services.
>> The port 443 would be already used by the router's management interface which
>> would probably run as a separate process on this router (as it would be an
>> entirely different codebase). So dnsmasq would have to provide DOH services on
>> another port.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Mateusz Jończyk
>>