Thanks Paul for the comment. I guess the reason for overkill is that too many schemes are created. The reason for underspecified is that the proposed doh scheme only reflects a subset of the parameters provided by a uri template. On the other hand I understand that parameters of the URI template should not be provided as part of the URI scheme. Am I correct ?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:35 PM Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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". > > Is your suggestion to have a parameter that indicates the use of (tls?, dot, doh) ? > --Paul Hoffman_______________________________________________ > 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
