Hi Ted,
Thanks for the feed back. The dns uri scheme has the port optional and provides port flexibility. If we are using the port as an indication of the transport protocol, we are losing this flexibility. A consequence is that is it would prevent using other ports than non standard port. My impression also is that some people are willing to deploy DoT or DoH on non standard port, thought I might wrong. For DoH, my understanding is that URI is formed according to the URI template. I think that being able to provide the path could be useful especially when different paths will be associated to different service. Maybe additional element may also be useful to add. I do not think the current dns scheme enables this and I would be happy to have your thoughts on it as I am not particularly familiar with uri template. Basically using the old dns uri, this would be something like: dns://host.example:443/dns-with-parental-protection/ www.example.org?clAsS=IN;tYpE=A dns://host.example:443/dns-without-filtering/www.example.org?clAsS=IN;tYpE=A Yours, Daniel On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 1:44 PM Ted Hardie <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I'm not sure I understand the need here. The existing DNS URI scheme uses > the standard authority semantics, so it permits a port. It seems like > using that gives you the same semantics as these additional schemes. That > is: > > dns://host.example:53/www.example.org.?clAsS=IN;tYpE=A > > dns://host.example:853/www.example.org.?clAsS=IN;tYpE=A > > dns://host.example:443/www.example.org.?clAsS=IN;tYpE=A > > seem to handle the cases where you need to specifically call out DNS is > being served over traditional transports (UDP and TCP over 53), DoT, and > DoH. > > What am I missing here? > > thanks, > > Ted > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:52 AM Daniel Migault <daniel.migault= > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Please find a draft describes URIs that describes the DNS resource being >> accessed through DNS53, DoT and DoH. >> >> Any comment / suggestions are welcome. >> >> Yours, >> Daniel >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> >> Sent: mercredi 18 mars 2020 22:57 >> To: Daniel Migault <[email protected]> >> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mglt-dprive-dns-uri-00.txt >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-mglt-dprive-dns-uri-00.txt has been >> successfully submitted by Daniel Migault and posted to the IETF repository. >> >> Name: draft-mglt-dprive-dns-uri >> Revision: 00 >> Title: Domain Name System Uniform Resource Identifiers for DNS >> over HTTPS and DNS over TLS >> Document date: 2020-03-18 >> Group: Individual Submission >> Pages: 7 >> URL: >> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mglt-dprive-dns-uri-00.txt >> Status: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mglt-dprive-dns-uri/ >> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mglt-dprive-dns-uri-00 >> Htmlized: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mglt-dprive-dns-uri >> >> >> Abstract: >> Today DNS resources may also be accessed using multiple transport >> which includes DNS over UDP/TCP port 53 [RFC1034],[RFC1035]. DNS >> over TLS [RFC7858] or DNS over HTTPS [RFC8484]. This document >> describes URIs that describes the DNS resource as well as indicate >> the transport to access the resource. >> >> >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at >> tools.ietf.org. >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
