On 2024-01-01 16:38, Ondřej Surý wrote:
On 1. 1. 2024, at 15:19, r1wcp...@bbqporkmccity.com wrote:
Thank you very much, I was unaware of the HTTP/2 requirement and was assuming
it is a bug. Is there any reason for omitting the HTTP/1.1 upgrade part of the
protocol?
It would be additional complexity that's really not needed. The HTTP/2 library
(libnghttp) doesn't provide HTTP/1.1 implementation,
so we would have to bolt something own for a little gain. And it would increase
an attack surface as it would be yet another protocol
open to the world that can have bugs in it.
Funny, given that HTTP/2 (the spec) had a CVE against it last October,
while HTTP/0.9 and HTTP/1.x did not.
Having the DoH server as a standalone process talking to DNS/TCP would
be a solid implementation given the constant flow of changes made to
HTTP(S) by the Big 5.
Enjoy
Jakob
--
Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. https://www.wisemo.com
Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10
This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors.
WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded
--
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from
this list
ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions.
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
