Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-shane-review-dns-over-http-02.txt

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 22:05:17 +0100

On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 08:10:09AM -0800,
 [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 43 lines which said:

>         Title           : A review of implementation DNS over port 80/443
>         Authors         : Shane Kerr
>                           Linjian Song
>                           Runxia Wan
> 	Filename        : draft-shane-review-dns-over-http-02.txt

2.1 "DNS over TCP on port 80/443" "One drawback of this approach is
that it might mislead the client because of the port used." Another
drawback for port 443, is that a zealous firewall may DPI the content,
find out it is not TLS, and decide to drop/block.

2.2 "DNS over TLS on port 443" says "One concern of DNS over TLS is
its cost.  Compared to UDP, DNS-over- TCP requires an additional
round-trip-time (RTT) of latency to establish a TCP connection." No
longer true if 5966bis is implemented and deployed.

2.3 "DNS Wire-format over HTTP(S)" contains "Using HTTP also benefits
from HTTP's persistent TCP connection pool concept (see section 6.3 in
[RFC7230]), which DNS on TCP port 53 does not have" Same remark as the
previous paragraph, you should mention 5966bis.
   
Editorial :

> It is quiet useful

quite