Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]> writes: > Any DNSvNext protocol MUST work in 100% of network situations where DNS > works or else it has 0% of being adopted.
That's simply impossible. A goal like that will just distract us. > Google is currently working on HTTP over UDP to shave a second of page load > times. This group is working is proposing to move the most latency critical > interaction from UDP to TLS. Some people here pointed out that the initial goal is for stub resolving, which is not latency critical. I believe this point can be made more clear in the documents and in the discussion. One easily gets the idea that this is about Internet-wide DNS. Confusing these two use-cases is bad. Personally, for stub-resolving I don't see the need for having two mechanisms (upgrade-TLS and port-TLS). Just standardize one of them and be done with it. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
