From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rb3qQ-0005GJ-BT for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 05:27:02 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of old.school.nz designates 209.85.212.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.47; envelope-from=k@old.school.nz; helo=mail-vw0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-vw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.212.47]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Rb3qP-000729-Ed for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 05:27:02 +0000 Received: by vbbfc21 with SMTP id fc21so1762542vbb.34 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:26:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.69.70 with SMTP id c6mr1401990vdu.65.1323925013100; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:56:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.107.70 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:56:52 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [60.234.234.61] In-Reply-To: <1323921429.68086.YahooMailClassic@web120901.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1323921429.68086.YahooMailClassic@web120901.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:56:52 +1300 Message-ID: From: Kyle Henderson To: Zell Faze Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307f32401d770704b41a500d X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1Rb3qP-000729-Ed Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: [BIP 15] Aliases X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 05:27:02 -0000 --20cf307f32401d770704b41a500d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Just so we're clear, what is the need for HTTP at all? A query for a string and an answer can all be handled via DNS. On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Zell Faze wrote: > Could we combine this proposal and the HTTPS proposal? > > The DNSSEC TXT record could give instructions on how to query an HTTPS > server to get the address. Then we get the dynamism of HTTPS without > having a rigid URL scheme for querying the server along with the advantages > of DNSSEC. > > --20cf307f32401d770704b41a500d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just so we're clear, what is the need for HTTP at all?

A query f= or a string and an answer can all be handled via DNS.

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Zell Faze &= lt;zellfaze@yahoo.com> = wrote:
Could we combine this proposal and the HTTPS= proposal?

The DNSSEC TXT record could give instructions on how to query an HTTPS serv= er to get the address. =C2=A0Then we get the dynamism of HTTPS without havi= ng a rigid URL scheme for querying the server along with the advantages of = DNSSEC.


--20cf307f32401d770704b41a500d--