Subject: [dnsoverhttp] HTTP/2

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:27:20 +1100

I've said this elsewhere, but I don't think that mandating HTTP/2 is
necessary [11].

The draft does this to pick up the security requirements of HTTP/2,
but that can be achieved in other ways that are less disruptive to the
stack.  I would prefer that we soften the requirement and encourage
the use of good practices - HTTP/2 certainly has many virtues that
make it a good choice - but not mandate a specific version.  See also
[56] and [7525].

I do think that the draft needs to be more precise about server push.
Right now, the description of server push is rather oblique and it
could use some more clarity [12].

[11] https://github.com/paulehoffman/draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https/issues/11
[56] https://mnot.github.io/I-D/bcp56bis/#specifying-the-use-of-http
[7525] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7525
[12] https://github.com/paulehoffman/draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https/issues/12

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:30:30 +1100

+1. Encouraging is fine, but at the end of the day, you can't guarantee that it'll be an e2e H2 connection.

> On 30 Oct 2017, at 12:27 pm, Martin Thomson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dnsoverhttp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsoverhttp

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/