Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by chimera77 2994 days ago
One of the use cases for DNS-over-HTTPS given in the draft was to allow web applications access to DNS directly via existing browser APIs.
3 comments

I've implemented DNS before. Doing this saves an entire 300 lines of code. At the same time, it makes the DNS server much more complicated. On top of that, implementing a compliant posix libc will now either use a completely different code path, or pull in a huge amount of code to implement HTTP, HTTP/2, and QUIC. If the simpler, cleaner, and more performant route is taken, it willgbreak when someone screws up "legacy" dns without noticing, because it works in the browser.

It's not worth the complexity of multiple protocols that do the same thing. And it's not worth making the base system insanely complicated so that the magic 4 letters 'http' can show up.

TLS? Yeah, since the simpler secure DNSes failed, we might as well use that. But let's try to keep http complexity contained.

Ok that’s actually pretty cool.
Wonder if this will pave the way for other protocols over HTTPS.
Hopefully not. One needs to stop working around crappy setups from crappy networks. Which X-over-HTTPS really is all about.
It seems like crappy networks are the norm nowadays, and the preference of the ISPs is to offer the web only. You need a middle box just to access the internet at-large (e.g Tor). Masquerading traffic as web traffic appears to be a good tactic, though inefficient/sloppy.
Yeah, but once everything is tunneled over HTTP it will finally fix the network operator problem once and for all since you can't filter applications using ports.