Andrea Ferro <[email protected]> wrote: > You raise a fair point about working group fit. The protocol is indeed > HTTP-based rather than modifying DNS wire format, so I understand DNSOP > may not be the natural home.
I think that the major reason HTTP was used is that it was "simple" to
implement. It gets through NAT44, and does not get hijacked as has occured
in the past to port-53 :-(
OTH, we now have DoH, and so we could well put DNS wire protocol style (3007)
updates over HTTPS with the right authorizations.
> Med (as DNSOP Area Director) has clarified that DNSOP serves as DNS
> dispatch for the IETF, and suggested I continue the discussion here.
Yes, that's fair enough.
> I’d welcome any guidance on the right path forward. Would this be
> better suited for an existing WG, or would forming a new tightly-scoped
> group be the recommended approach? If the latter, what would be the
> typical first steps?
I'd say that the first step is:
> I’m also happy to reach out to other providers and client implementers
> to gauge interest in collaborating on this.
without implementers, there is no useful specification :-)
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
