Re: [dns-privacy] Maybe a new URI scheme dnss: ?

[Paul Hoffman]

On 17 Apr 2018, at 2:38, Erik Kline wrote:


And looking at this thread I see I missed Stephane's response that
perhaps I should have asked uri-review@.


Having a full proposal (even if it is one that will be abandoned) is the 
best way to approach that list. I'm happy to work on that with you.


--Paul Hoffman

___
dns-privacy mailing list
dns-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

Re: [dns-privacy] Maybe a new URI scheme dnss: ?

[Erik Kline]

On 13 April 2018 at 02:23, Paul Hoffman  wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2018, at 9:59, Brian Haberman wrote:
>
>> Erik Kline posted about this about a month ago on this list. In general,
>> I think this appears to have some interest behind it.
>
>
> Gh, I can't believe I forgot that, particularly given how recently it
> was. Apologies to Erik. And I'll work with him on a proposal based on the
> discussion on the list.

The thread mentioned here would be this one:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dns-privacy/current/msg01893.html

And looking at this thread I see I missed Stephane's response that
perhaps I should have asked uri-review@.


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
dns-privacy mailing list
dns-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

Re: [dns-privacy] Maybe a new URI scheme dnss: ?

[Paul Hoffman]

On 12 Apr 2018, at 9:59, Brian Haberman wrote:

Erik Kline posted about this about a month ago on this list. In 
general,

I think this appears to have some interest behind it.


Gh, I can't believe I forgot that, particularly given how recently 
it was. Apologies to Erik. And I'll work with him on a proposal based on 
the discussion on the list.


--Paul Hoffman

___
dns-privacy mailing list
dns-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

Re: [dns-privacy] Maybe a new URI scheme dnss: ?

[Brian Haberman]

Hi Paul,

On 4/12/18 11:56 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings. RFC 4501 defines the dns: URI scheme. You can specify a host
> and port number, but the assumption is that you are running DNS. Thus,
> dns://1.1.1.1:853/example.com?TYPE=A does not mean "use DNS over TLS".
> 
> I'm thinking of proposing a dnss: scheme for "DNS over TLS", akin to
> https: for "HTTP over TLS". Does anyone have any objection to me
> starting this work? Or has anyone already started it but not moved it
> forward in the process?

Erik Kline posted about this about a month ago on this list. In general,
I think this appears to have some interest behind it.

Regards,
Brian



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
dns-privacy mailing list
dns-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy