> On 23 Aug 2021, at 20:29, Eric Orth
> wrote:
>
> I don't think (1) should get much consideration unless a specific stub
> implementation is found willing and interested in implementing it. For most
> of the clients in this space, I would anticipate that they're either happy
> with DoH
On Mon, 2021-08-16 at 08:18 -0400, Brian Haberman wrote:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/
>
> We would like to hear comments/questions on the applicability of DoQ to
> the three use cases described in the draft:
>
>1. Stub to recursive resolver
>2. Recursive
Hello.
On 16/08/2021 14.18, Brian Haberman wrote:
1. Stub to recursive resolver
2. Recursive resolver to authoritative servers
3. Zone transfers
Do you agree/disagree that the use cases should be considered for DoQ?
I'm certainly glad that 2 got included. I probably even
Hi all,
The chairs are soliciting feedback on the use cases described in
the DoQ draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic/
We would like to hear comments/questions on the applicability of DoQ to
the three use cases described in the draft:
1. Stub to recursive
