On Mar 19, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Ted Hardie <[email protected]> wrote: > > What that suggests is, if you really believe the trade-off to focus on > specific servers and non-standard ports is critical, that you should mint a > single URI scheme for the purpose, with a mandatory paramater that lists the > transports . I would personally still feel that was heading this in the > wrong direction, but it would avoid some of the worst questions about > equivalence. >
+1. This proposal really seems like both overkill and underspecified. For the latter, note that DoH allows multiple formats for the queries and responses, but that is not (AND SHOULD NOT) be specified in the proposed "doh:". Instead, it is fine to have a short document that says little more than "clients that know multiple ways of making DNS requests might try multiple transports when acting on a 'dns:' URI". --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
