Hi Shane We've been using our implementation of DNS over HTTP for about 2 years ( Of course not in RESTFUL style, just some rough plain text format ). So I strongly support working on this draft to help standardize this kind of DNS service.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, George Michaelson <[email protected]> wrote: > \o/ > > -G > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Shane Kerr <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> All, >> >> At BII we have been working on a couple of drafts that might be of >> interest to the dnsop working group. We are happy to work them through >> as independent submissions, but if there is interest in the working >> group then we are also happy to do the work here. >> >> Sorry we don't have the drafts submitted yet. :( But here is a rough >> idea about them. >> >> We have one document that is a kind of survey document of DNS over >> HTTP. We go through the whole taxonomy of DNS over HTTP, starting from >> DNS just using port 80 instead of port 53, through various levels of >> encapsulation, and finally ending up with REST-style API's at the very >> end. >> >> The other document describes our specific implementation, which sits >> kind of in the middle of the the previous document, using DNS packets >> sent in wire format via application/octet-stream. While of less general >> interest, probably this is more important to standardize for >> interoperability reasons. >> >> Anyway, I am sure the quality of any resulting RFCs will be higher if >> the working group adopts them, but I this is not super important in >> either case. We are happy either way. :) >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- >> Shane >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >> > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
