On 3 April 2018 at 15:33, Martin Thomson <martin.thom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is intended to do what? Indicate where the response came from? > Why does the client care? To keep the proxy (API client and server) transparent and bypass the middlebox along the path. Without the indicate, the API server has no clue what transport the client use (or would like to use. because there maybe cases that client would like to test TCP capablity of the far end resolver, I don't know). If no such indicate, It is either always using UDP or TCP by default (or by local configuration). It can be done as an choice for software implementation, but for protocol design IMHO, a indicate should be introduced to provide that information. > I assume that it doesn't apply to requests, > or that would get into draft-bellis-dnsop-xpf territory. > That's is the quesion whether the indicate should be carried in HTTP layer or DNS layer. If we use HTTP as a tranparent tunnel without any modification on upper layer message, I would prefer to use a HTTP indicate. > BTW, you really need to drop UDP from the media type name now. > application/dns-udpwireformat;original_transport=tcp is a bit of a > contradiction. I agree. I find no harm defining a media type "application/dns-wireformat" for DOH. Davey
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
