"Martin Thomson" <[email protected]> writes: TL;DR: don't adopt
> I would question the value of publishing the experimental > approximately-but-not-quite-O-HTTP version then. Unless we fail > majestically in chartering and executing there, we're not talking > about significant delays. It seems silly to me to write up a document that is decoupled from the parallel O-HTTP work when it would be better off depending on the results of that work. Otherwise we'll have potentially two different protocols that are subtly different enough to increase code complexity in stacks trying to offer support for both. I'm not sure where that intersection will exist (browsers?), but I doubt it's zero implementations. IMHO, ODoH is a useful goal and protocol but should be a small document describing the additions needed beyond the eventual O-HTTP. If the current proposal does get adopted, I'd argue for experimental being a much better track. I strongly doubt, without evidence, that this will be the final solution to this newly targeted problem. ------ (as proof that I'm not opposed to the technology proposed in general: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardaker-dnse-split-key-dns/ from 2014) -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
