Thanks for checking. I recall we co-authors of RFC 7958 talked about ALPN for DoT before (can't recall if it bubbled up to WG discussion). It seems useful to me now.
Question for the WG: Would we want to update RFC 7858 (or RFC 8310) to indicate the ALPN ID exists? This would be for the sake of future implementors, whether they want to run DoT and DoH, or want to cautiously run only DoT on 443. Allison On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 09:01 Reed, Jon <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm planning to request a registration of an ALPN ID[1] for DNS-over-TLS. > One primary use case we have is supporting both DoT and DoH on port 443, > when port 853 is blocked between clients and the servers (this is by mutual > agreement, as discussed in RFC 7858 ยง 3.1). I plan on requesting the > protocol ID 0x64 0x6F 0x74 ("dot"), following the conventions of using all > lowercase in registrations. > > Per discussion with one of the expert reviewers, I'm polling the list to > see if anyone has objections -- if so, please let me know. I'd be > interested in hearing the objections, and what alternatives might be > proposed. > > Thanks, > Jon > > [1] > https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-extensiontype-values.xhtml#alpn-protocol-ids > > > -- > Jon Reed > [email protected] > Nameservers Service Performance > Akamai Technologies > > > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy >
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
