Hello. On 16/08/2021 14.18, Brian Haberman wrote:
1. Stub to recursive resolver 2. Recursive resolver to authoritative servers 3. Zone transfersDo you agree/disagree that the use cases should be considered for DoQ?
I'm certainly glad that 2 got included. I probably even consider it more important than 1, as we have DoT for 1 already and 2 seems more sensitive to handshake latency than 1. (Nit: I consider 1 to include any case towards non-authoritative. There are various proxies, forwarding between resolvers, etc.)
Adding 3 caused an incompatibility with previous draft's implementations; hopefully that won't cause noticeable trouble (I have almost no worries after Sara's presentation). If I disregard that, I certainly like including 3 for consistency with DoT+XoT, as the two bytes are a cheap price.
Do you agree/disagree that DoQ provides sufficient functionality for the use cases?
I can't see anything missing, and I find it highly unlikely that something serious is missing. (More implementations would improve confidence, but I'm afraid I can't promise any substantial DoQ from cz.nic within a few months, even though it has fans here.)
--Vladimir | knot-resolver.cz _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
