> On 2. 1. 2024, at 10:38, Jakob Bohm via bind-users
> wrote:
>
> Funny, given that HTTP/2 (the spec) had a CVE against it last October,
> while HTTP/0.9 and HTTP/1.x did not.
I’ve said that a single modern HTTP/2 implementation (backed by maintained
library) is much better than having two d
On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 4:38 AM Jakob Bohm via bind-users
wrote:
> Having the DoH server as a standalone process talking to DNS/TCP would
> be a solid implementation given the constant flow of changes made to
> HTTP(S) by the Big 5.
Perhaps, but for reference here is the relevant section of the Do
On 2024-01-01 16:38, Ondřej Surý wrote:
On 1. 1. 2024, at 15:19, r1wcp...@bbqporkmccity.com wrote:
Thank you very much, I was unaware of the HTTP/2 requirement and was assuming
it is a bug. Is there any reason for omitting the HTTP/1.1 upgrade part of the
protocol?
It would be additional com
3 matches
Mail list logo
