>DNS through TLS means it's all end-to-end encrypted
I didn't say I'm against DNS being encrypted, even with TLS. I just hate that instead of doing the right thing (e.g. political battle with the government, opening a port on a firewall) people choose the laziest way: just tunnel it over HTTP.
>Protocol can be layered just fine (HTTP itself is a good example)
They can, but why do it? Just figure out a way to make your server be yet-another-"REST"-service and pat yourself on the back for cleverness.
>DNS as it exists now is another random special snowflake that vendors need corresponding snowflake implementations for.
As is: SMTP, POP, IMAP, SSH, AMQP, FIX, SWIFT, LDAP, ODBC and a host of other protocols. Why do you use negative language like "random special snowflake that vendors need corresponding snowflake implementations for"? These are seperate protocols, which serve seperate specific needs. This is how IP was designed to work.
Yes as a protocol designer, I couldn't care less about the type of data that runs through the protocol. The semantics are much more important. Sequenced delivery with hard requirements on delivery order and reliability? Probably should be TCP based. Something that gives something different would be RTP (specialized for sending media packets which aren't useful after a certain time has elapsed) or SCTP or UDP.
I don't disagree at all. But I don't find this sufficient justification to engage in poor engineering practices.
DNS has a different set of use cases than HTTP so, while it can be made to work with enough effort (anything can), HTTP can never be as good at DNS as an actual protocol designed to do DNS can.
I didn't say I'm against DNS being encrypted, even with TLS. I just hate that instead of doing the right thing (e.g. political battle with the government, opening a port on a firewall) people choose the laziest way: just tunnel it over HTTP.
>Protocol can be layered just fine (HTTP itself is a good example)
They can, but why do it? Just figure out a way to make your server be yet-another-"REST"-service and pat yourself on the back for cleverness.
>DNS as it exists now is another random special snowflake that vendors need corresponding snowflake implementations for.
As is: SMTP, POP, IMAP, SSH, AMQP, FIX, SWIFT, LDAP, ODBC and a host of other protocols. Why do you use negative language like "random special snowflake that vendors need corresponding snowflake implementations for"? These are seperate protocols, which serve seperate specific needs. This is how IP was designed to work.