I recently heard about DOH (https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/05/a-cartoon-intro-to-dns-over-https/ …) and was wondering whether I'm the only one shocked by the design. For instance, @jedisct1 what's your opinion about that? @bortzmeyer you look pleased; are you?
-
-
Replying to @aifsair
I think it’s great and extremely promising. DNS has traditionally been a bottleneck for what CDNs can do to reduce latency. DoH can remove that bottleneck.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jedisct1
From an early reading, I dislike the mandatory TCP + TLS + http boilerplate as opposed to packed datas, inside UDP datagram. Should it even be called DNS? Plus, that's just tunneling DNS inside another protocol.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
At least QUIC should remove some of this overhead. Still the same underlying idea about universal HTTP though.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aifsair
The overhead is negligible, as HTTP/2 provides multiplexing, prioritization, etc. similar than UDP, except better implemented. And it opens new possibilities such as https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-doh-digests-00 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jedisct1
I agree on that part for http/2. Didn't get the requirement cause only read "dns over https" though.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aifsair
They call it DNS-over-HTTPS, but the actual specifications mandate HTTP/2, and explain why it wouldn’t make any sense to do it over HTTP.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jedisct1
I have to read the actual draft rather than blog posts. Thanks for your inputs :)
8 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The extra bytes it may require compared to a very application-specific, hardly extensible protocol like we did in the 70’s is not “overhead”. The world is optimized for HTTP/2, in practice it’s bound to be the most efficient, if only because tools don’t suck.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.