IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Doh] Consensus confirmation

Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> Sun, 25 March 2018 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <bemasc@google.com>
X-Original-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDBF4127869 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.71
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CxtqOb50JWJw for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22c.google.com (mail-io0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D256127136 for <doh@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id e79so20424222ioi.7 for <doh@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3UG4QU4MQmDsLjESKZrOHtW4qQROTxfD1466HLCLg/g=; b=fo2EfasPv71xJOLZieDnLH4351rP4UBsoGYeDoWGFnA4ybHmqPFZMgG5jVrTATWSXk mvsqlUPsYL59lBXeAt7BC9OM/gr379mvCoa+eKp3qV/6RbQ8vFf7iZjGXO3i7VmCOSI3 GGyWRovgdU5+41pktmGq9fuTEedZqv1+TbaRyTGC7v2fLUn+4STDs1EeXfRDseIciRqs 0Iu0RYbnhc0mq6mbbs9FMgJ7ZL0zT4bEvPLG/F0xpHT941ffUYeuOrWVL2PZlwVZEQnP bqNceW4rwz2cnKSZoUOvIWI20t/iM5RG2fEAbvHrb+VNoYTY7lY+5uoaM8vRnTk7VO9A XPuA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3UG4QU4MQmDsLjESKZrOHtW4qQROTxfD1466HLCLg/g=; b=eWAeC1wqBOw0S0zKx96LwBrx7uUIUsCRmbvUTPYzOwv4+fvLOYboFQaoHjJfTZS+jU zQtXen2fVNGHDh3b1YQmGzAnJREaZ+rsWyuU8N9ogqV5WRhaMjcnRzTRLfG9Mfo84odR 6kfSkizmGPoClStWbODs7FMm2N3k+Scw1cWivkLF28+ssObRgoyAexyrYFxssyBEUb3a E2QjhQtt4w1EfWtIS0JejGyPrj4nkfpZQXOkEkKeI2+PFOxivBC9vo3yYZjd5Pn2UDhR 0yDzqfYPIGbIstW8G3WiB3CTGxMDLc88PvmDfrGa0ckXk7Ir3KMCq3XNmfwGmj2ZkmGp nTPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HEAfKitTZQBNbwMxsQZdyNYNSBOO//B4IVNmUPgkmP8XlZobm7 AMnx7hgLDzxyEM5ZxRqk3irkixtOYnbQVBCzOIVWhRNl
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+tbH0R3AV7qM+sST2W0aKy4J+nCez9RmvJ8MjxGwXVoukIlj/+PG6HC4dZoohbtcrB0qArHlTuSjnYErMi66g=
X-Received: by 10.107.174.102 with SMTP id x99mr9466514ioe.18.1521995530881; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.168.210 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 12:32:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbrMsAs8G-eW7DTUtbdGukLszHohmk4NHhFPWw01+h3-v9Uog@mail.gmail.com>
To: DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="001a11449fe403319005683f3357"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/pvd-Jr2nsg4vYW4lmmWDlHPHOHA>
Subject: [Doh] Consensus confirmation
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <doh.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/doh/>
List-Post: <mailto:doh@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:32:14 -0000

Hi DOH,

At the meeting in London last week, we asked the room for opinions on two
topics:

1. Should we have a content-type that is Mandatory to Implement?

Several participants spoke in favor of making the default format (currently
called "application/dns-udpwireformat") mandatory, at least for servers.

2. Among the GET and POST modes of operation, which, if any, should be
mandatory to implement?

Among the participants, there was consensus in favor of making both GET and
POST mandatory to implement for servers.

If you would like to voice a dissenting opinion on either point, please
reply on this list.  Otherwise, the chairs will regard these decisions as
the group's consensus.

--Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email