I support adoption. I think someone bemoaned the possibility of another surplus DNS transport option, but I don't think the existence of RFC 8094 has caused any harm, so I consider that argument weak, in this case. I can also easily envisage a future where DoQ becomes important, so it'd be good if it's well defined. I don't think this draft ought be the one where one finds the analysis of all the different DNS transport options.
Cheers, S. On 08/04/2020 17:41, Tim Wicinski wrote: > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic > > The draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic/ > > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption > by DPRIVE, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. > > Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc. > > This call for adoption ends: 22 April 2020 > > Thanks, > tim/brian > > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy >
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
