On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:51 AM, IETF Secretariat < ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org> wrote:
> > The DNSOP WG has placed draft-song-dns-wireformat-http in state > Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski) > > The document is available at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-dns-wireformat-http/ > > > I support adoption and will review. Is there a need to mention a third scenario? Scenario 1: stub resolver <--- dns or http(s) ---> DNS resolver Scenario 2: stub resolver <--- dns ---> proxy DNS to HTTP(S) <--- http(s) ---> DNS resolver Scenario 3: stub resolver <--- http(s) ---> proxy HTTP(S) to DNS <--- dns ---> DNS resolver Or is the third a subset of another or implied or not useful? Some comment on this scenario might be helpful. -- Bob Harold
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
