Re: [Doh] Web Convergence - is there a document/RFC for this apparent direction?

Todd Hubers <> Fri, 26 October 2018 03:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 516B7130DC9 for <>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 20:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FB9dZCkCnL19 for <>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 20:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8712B12D4EA for <>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 20:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e5-v6so10332722eds.6 for <>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 20:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SBGxvuxx3GEWPaSh7pZUtE60KNutrLlZ/c0nB+gGyXw=; b=nDoO3Gjb1nzYgPdveqHSBuXYbi23N9dslHRfIPDXidDlb91a7YKzmc570droFjXb1v gzOqXwHvkJxXMwo5C9JdiWNpSKakPYLvpLB5ipzGQkONrgi0OxuR7Wa+w+9LPcb47EnA T36yh5gqSCpDBjaESxi9pTIS4Utpq/zvyAVmtOgUwDsZkL0X2ClGxLFgw3Nnwgh048fA XCkJ686ursnUzCNAcBUKP2ppFsTTD6SF8ItdsU8bVBb21G5zGmISS7PK3nQZiB0Ndzhf FPK7dMB/DNermcNnAq8Bg5DPw4trKuBgByV7Ffc/yVZ54rrSXBwadcyZu+SaTnV144mA VRJA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SBGxvuxx3GEWPaSh7pZUtE60KNutrLlZ/c0nB+gGyXw=; b=V68mvOcQPmeDOR9I2f9laotw4sx7JBa88+G40ly4bkvRTR5WUCDChkQY9iTkuFS/1U BPZJN90anVAfaCX+/bM5GPc/yilMKBr9qu22WaEC65p/YUzL8ZtVf1SO+5erC8wxvXR3 221WoFpT35sp/IWYd28se6F5BPSVD6fZ5DuO4FR/5GwFCX3/ptxj2MtY5BxHNXH1jUpr OFg2gmptUzMqeiQI/x0dTdEOWE9OZl4iKUaYpL9BrZjVr6jv2UWRrB4ESrjeujtnoJ4j LI4Iot8d2dAIHPkmL5HK6zCw+9qQwFLkA3wp/Wt81g4LMwHw0Y7F532juHhOqKT7OO7Y kAsw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLij2slIUOdai6iFiH/FDznQXA+ZXKnrL1ihj2Dt9SY4Cji0hNa SXOK2CaeHGp46oTjR0RilQMJdbbBpL8qSKIRlRgX490r
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fJfWtHfaQn79GOesj4av7gQxu3StbZ0CZXB5Wtl7RLHkkWpDRv0Gscx+6U1udzTQAZkbp6fZ/D2oei3kom2Xc=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:f1cc:: with SMTP id y12-v6mr1405758edl.140.1540523546955; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 20:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Todd Hubers <>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:12:14 +1100
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c8d13a057919167e"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Web Convergence - is there a document/RFC for this apparent direction?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 03:12:31 -0000

Hi Dave,

This is simply a poor choice of words on my part. I see DoH as a new
standard that leverages the DNS binary protocol in the message area. I used
the term "re-standardization" to mean a new standard that redefines and the
way an older one worked. Most significantly, DNS uses another port for
example, but DoH would use port 80/443.

So "redefine" is probably better, but "new standard" is probably the best,
because it isn't directly superceding - the two standards will live on side
by side.

Also, "recasting" is another idea I had with respect to DoH. A lot of the
same "material" is used, but in another form.


On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 13:58, Dave Lawrence <> wrote:

> Todd Hubers writes:
> > Is there a document/RFC about the IETFs collective general movement
> > toward re-standardisation of things like DNS (DOH), SMTP (JMAP), and
> > maybe others using Web/HTTP/JSON?
> I'm curious about the use of the term "re-standardization" here, and
> suspect my interpretation of it is different than what you intended.
> I would take the word to mean redefinition, and in that light I'd have
> a really hard time defining DoH as the DNS being re-standardized.  How
> did you mean it?
> _______________________________________________
> Doh mailing list

Todd Hubers