Ray Bellis wrote:
On 04/04/2018 04:39, Dave Lawrence wrote:
I think that's right. -05 with the original_transport optional
parameter accommodates the aims of that other draft.
but ignores the concerns I raised yesterday that simply indicating "tcp"
or "udp" is insufficient to allow a server to make policy decisions
based on the meta-properties of the original request and its transport
(whether that be a "real" tranport protocol like UDP or TCP or a
pseudo-transport like DNS-o-TLS, or DNS-o-QUIC, etc).
tcp and udp are the two ways a query might have reached the initiating
proxy, and that distinction is the only thing the responding proxy needs
to know. if DOH becomes a standard transport, then we could add that
identifier as well -- but i don't think a client capable of DOH is going
to be using this particular proxy method.
--
P Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
