Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider path-based proxying method #64

Closed
tfpauly opened this issue Oct 15, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #70
Closed

Consider path-based proxying method #64

tfpauly opened this issue Oct 15, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #70
Assignees

Comments

@tfpauly
Copy link
Owner

tfpauly commented Oct 15, 2019

From @enygren:

I really, really do NOT like how :authority is having its meaning
altered in the ODNS draft. This breaks HTTP semantics and this
breaks a bunch of assumptions on how CDN servers do hostname-based
service multiplexing. It would require having separate IP addresses
for DoH servers from CDN servers, for example. (Which has worse
privacy properties.) I'd propose instead that ODNS followes adds
some path elements. For example:

:method = POST
:authority = dnsproxy.example.net
:path = /dns-query?targethost=dnstarget.example.net&targetpath=/dns-query
...

makes this be normal HTTPS semantics. It also avoids problems if the
proxy and target have different DoH template URI paths which
I don't believe the current draft handles?

@tfpauly
Copy link
Owner Author

tfpauly commented Oct 15, 2019

This also was how we ended up implementing out test GO server, as a note.

@mcmanus
Copy link
Collaborator

mcmanus commented Oct 16, 2019

yeah - this is my fault. I basically agree with @enygren now. I'm not sure it breaks http semantics, but we can debate that in the bar.. it does make the doh service discovery ridiculously hard and we should avoid that.

would we define a new uri template with targethost and targetpath variables?

@tfpauly
Copy link
Owner Author

tfpauly commented Oct 16, 2019

Cool, I'll do this change.

I don't think we need a new URI Template; I think you just use the normal template here

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants