Re: [Doh] New version: draft-ietf-doh-resolver-associated-doh-03.txt

> As for the late discussion of using the URI RRtype instead of TXT, I
would not know what to put in the "priority" and "weight" values.
> That alone seems enough reason to leave this as a TXT record, but others
might disagree.
> It's not a lot of effort to change the text to the URI RRtype, but I
don't want to do so unless it is actually better than TXT.

Being able to specify at least priority (even if using fixed/equal weights)
seems valuable,
as many large networks architect their DNS infrastructure have "primary"
and "secondary" site clusters.
The primary and secondary clusters are often sized and located differently,
such as with the primary
being more widely distributed and the secondary more centrally deployed.
I suspect this desire to have a ordered preference but with failover will
carry over to DoH.

       Erik

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 4:20 AM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:

> The diffs here are what I think have general agreement from the discussion
> about this draft so far, but I may have missed things. Comments are still
> quite welcome.
>
> As for the late discussion of using the URI RRtype instead of TXT, I would
> not know what to put in the "priority" and "weight" values. That alone
> seems enough reason to leave this as a TXT record, but others might
> disagree. It's not a lot of effort to change the text to the URI RRtype,
> but I don't want to do so unless it is actually better than TXT.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> Doh mailing list
> Doh@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
>