ok... so it makes probably more sense to document how the dns scheme handles DoH and DoT rather than creating new schemes. Thanks for the comments!
Yours, Daniel On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 19, 2020, at 1:37 PM, Daniel Migault <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 ? > > > > Correct. People can't do parameters in URI schemes reliably at all. > > As for your earlier question about http: and https:, many people now think > in retrospect that that was a well-intentioned mistake. The fact that you > have so many choices in your draft shows that it will only get worse. > > --Paul Hoffman -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
