> On Jul 25, 2019, at 06:54, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>
>> Seen on a slide at IETF 105 :
>>
>> DoTH (to talk about DoH and DoT together, as in "DoTH use TLS to
>> protect DNS queries against snoopers").
>>
>> A nice addition? :-)
>
> DoTH is the abbreviation I use
*To:* Evan Hunt
> *Cc:* dnsop
> *Subject:* Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action:
> draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter-01.txt
>
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, Evan Hunt wrote:
>
> > "Do53" is a handy abbreviation, but I'm concerned that using it as a
> > coequal peer of DoT
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter-01.txt
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, Evan Hunt wrote:
> "Do53" is a handy abbreviation, but I'm concerned that using it as a
> coequal peer of DoT and DoH will lead to fuzzy thinking.
Indeed. U53, T53 and UT53 (or 53U
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, Evan Hunt wrote:
"Do53" is a handy abbreviation, but I'm concerned that using it as a
coequal peer of DoT and DoH will lead to fuzzy thinking.
Indeed. U53, T53 and UT53 (or 53U, 53T, 53UT) would be far more informative.
Paul
__
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 03:36:39PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> These abbreviations are about identifying the transport that is being used
> for the DNS messages. One problem with Do53 is that it isn't specific
> about the transport, because it covers both UDP and TCP. But it's a handy
> abbreviation
I dislike the rate of change in terminology, and what feels like
intrusion of somebodys favourite term, which is not actually
reflective of widespread use in DNS discussion.
I have never said DO53 and I don't know anyone who has. Every other
term of art, has sound basis. This feels like a bad back
Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> I dislike Do53, because then we should really have Do53-over-TCP as DoT
> and Do53-over-https as DoH. If we call it "DNS-over-TCP" than really
> what we are doing is running (classic) DNS over TCP, and we shouldn't
> midway the discussion rename "DNS" to "Do53".
These abbr
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, Tony Finch wrote:
what do you use then for "traditional DNS over UDP/TCP” aka Do53
I like Do53.
I dislike Do53, because then we should really have Do53-over-TCP as DoT
and Do53-over-https as DoH. If we call it "DNS-over-TCP" than really
what we are doing is running (cla
Normen Kowalewski wrote:
>
> what do you use then for "traditional DNS over UDP/TCP” aka Do53
I like Do53. I also like DONUTS (DNS over normal unencrypted TCP streams)
but that joke is a bit over-ripe.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
Fitzroy, Sole: Southerly veering westerly 5 t
Hi Tony,
what do you use then for "traditional DNS over UDP/TCP” aka Do53
I had thought about one approach is to express distinction into the
abbreviation by transport protocol, a suggestion by Puneet Sood was to use
DoUT instead of Do53
This would still be consistent with grouping DoT and D
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> Seen on a slide at IETF 105 :
>
> DoTH (to talk about DoH and DoT together, as in "DoTH use TLS to
> protect DNS queries against snoopers").
>
> A nice addition? :-)
DoTH is the abbreviation I use for my documentation about encrypted DNS
since August last year, http
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 05:00:38PM -0700,
internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote
a message of 41 lines which said:
> Title : Terminology for DNS Transports and Location
> Author : Paul Hoffman
> Filename: draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter-01.txt
Seen o
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.
Title : Terminology for DNS Transports and Location
Author : Paul Hoffman
Filename: dr
13 matches
Mail list logo
