Re: [Add] ADD Calls for WF Adoption

[Steffen Nurpmeso <[e-mail]>]

Michael Richardson wrote in
 <28275.1634426048@localhost>:
 |
 |Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
 |> I've not formed an opinion on this work.  I've read it, I can see the
 |> use case, but I'm still uncertain about the mechanisms being proposed.
 |> The use of PvD seems fine. But the authorization piece is not clear.
 |> It seems to depend on secure connections to an authoritative, except
 |> that this is for a stub resolver, but maybe I didn't take enough time
 |> to work through the entire process or think about alternatives.
 |
 |All of the work in this WG is way more complex than a Stub Resolver.

You need to add a domain name filter on top of it to be able to
use specific upstreams for specific domains.

 |It's time to stop calling it that.  It needs a new name.

Stub resolver 2.0.

 |It's no longer the same code base.

You do a SVCB to dynamically fetch upstream server names instead
of using config-files, built-ins or falling back to root servers
if unavailable.  Or add it on top.

You prefilter used upstream servers depending on names to look up.

 |We aren't going to interoperate with legacy code.

I have to admit i stopped reading the rich text mails here a long
time ago, but i had read the first draft once it came up.
Please show patience if i have missed something important.

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)