Re: [Doh] Reviewing Resolver-Associated DOH

[nusenu <[e-mail]>]

> Abstract
> 
>    Browsers and web applications may want to know if there are one or
>    more DoH servers associated with the DNS recursive resolver that the
>    operating system is already using. 
[...]
> There is a use case for browsers and web applications to want

to make it clear that this discovery mechanism can be used by any application
(or even the OS itself) and is not limited to "browsers and web applications"
maybe use something more generic like "Systems and applications may want know
if there are one or more DoH servers ..."?

> TXT vs. RRtype

For the reasons Paul outlined and since this is a special local-only domain
name I believe TXT is fine here.
I also agree with Eliot that TXT allows easier adoption than a new RRtype.



Generally speaking I would find it nice to have a similar discovery mechanism
for DoT but since that is outside the DoH WG I assume it has to go into a
separate document (even though it could copy most of the text).


https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/doh/about/ wrote:
> This will enable the domain name system to
> function over certain paths where existing DNS methods (UDP, TLS [RFC 7857],

there is probably a typo:
RFC 7857 (Updates to NAT) vs RFC 7858 (DNS-over-TLS)



-- 
https://twitter.com/nusenu_
https://mastodon.social/@nusenu