Re: [Add] My single use case

Hi Martin,

Appreciate you may not be able to answer this until tomorrow but I'd like
to map your statement to sections of the draft.

I think this case is a simpler version of section 3.1 (both 3.1.1 and
3.1.2). I presume you are excluding VPNs (3.3) here, since they are
networks in which you have a prior relationship.

Personally I would say part of "the matrix" of this use case should involve
section 4.1's learning about the scope of names that are relevant.

Chris

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 16:08, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:

> My preference is to tackle just this:
>
> As a new device or application, when I join a network that I have no prior
> relationship with or configuration for, I want to discover the DoT or DoH
> resolver that corresponds to the Do53 resolver offered by that network.
>
> This might need the full matrix of DoT/DoH, v4/v6, with/without a
> forwarder, but this is fundamentally just a single use case.
>
> Specifically, I want to NOT learn about whether the resolver does qname
> minimization or DoT to the authoritative or whether it does the eDNS client
> subnet or different policies with respect to what is answered or anything
> else that might make a decision to use this alternative complicated.
> Existing methods don't provide this information.  I don't want a protocol
> that does anything fancy because that makes the decision complex.
>
> --
> Add mailing list
> Add@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add
>