Subject: Re: [dnsoverhttp] HTTP/2

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:58:27 +0800

Maybe an option would be to say:

"The protocol SHOULD be offered over HTTP/2, and MAY be offered over
previous versions of the HTTP protocol".. together with all the
reasoning for using HTTP/2.

best,
Alex

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:
> +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:
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dnsoverhttp mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsoverhttp
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
> _______________________________________________
> dnsoverhttp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsoverhttp

---

From: Ben Schwartz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:59:59 +0800

Could you please move this conversation to doh@?  This is not the working
group list.