On Mar 26, 2018, at 7:08 AM, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > Paul Hoffman wrote: >> Given the use case in draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http, defining >> a new media type seems like overkill, particularly given that it will >> be transporting *the exact same* data as an existing media type. >> Instead, an optional parameter could be added to the >> application/dns-udpwireformat registration in the DOH document. >> >> Proposal: >> >> ===== >> >> In the media type definition, change "Optional parameters" to: >> >> Optional parameters: original_transport original_transport has two >> defined values, "udp" and "tcp". This is only expected to be used by >> servers. > > s/servers/proxies/
Maybe? I can't tell from the current draft if a proxy client would need to send a transport type. >> Also in the the DOH document, under Operational Considerations, we >> would add: >> >> This protocol does not define any use for the original_transport >> optional parameter of the application/dns-udpwireformat media type. >> >> ===== >> >> Then draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http could define the use of >> that optional parameter as it sees fit. > > so this would look like > > content-type: application/dns-udpwireformat; tcp Not quite. content-type: application/dns-udpwireformat; original_transport=tcp --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
