> On 24 Mar 2021, at 13:34, Bill Woodcock <[email protected]> wrote: > > I’m still looking for those reasons. Could you enumerate them again?
No. You can re-read my earlier mail which enumerated those reasons. If you want to discuss specifics, I’m happy to do so. Though the issue of SVCB records in TLDs is somewhat orthogonal to draft-opportunistic-adotq - as Paul Wouters pointed out. Perhaps that should be discussed off-list. >> I very much doubt any busy TLD will ever turn on DoT or DoH on their >> authoritative name servers. > > I’ve got a few hundred that say otherwise. That’s fine Bill. However I think we’re using different definitions of busy.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
