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

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:25 AM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
wrote:

> On Mar 25, 2019, at 4:05 PM, Ralf Weber <dns@fl1ger.de> wrote:
> > I have some questions after reading -03 (and skipping -02 ;-)
> > - The resolver IP addresses returned from DNS on section 4 are these
> Do53 server addresses or DoH server address or are they just the IP to
> start the process in section 2 (maybe 3)?
>
> They are the IP addresses of the Do53 resolver that the computer is using.
> I'll make that clearer in the next draft.
>
> > - On section 3 a non compliant current server will return NXDomain. What
> are we going to do with this answer (treat is as no DoH associated)?
>
> Yes, that was the intention. I'll clarify that.
>
> >> 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.
> > Another option could be a new RRType, given that it doesn’t have to be
> provisioned on auth servers it should not be that difficult to roll it out.
> We still could use the special name or just ask .
>
> I have been told that some OSs have "send a TXT request" API call, but I
> have not verified that. If so, then TXT records will have an advantage.
> Otherwise, using a new RRtype is cleaner.
>
> Can someone who from the application implementation world verify or refute
> my hazy memory of API calls for TXT records?
>

POSIX systems generally lack such an API.

--Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> Doh mailing list
> Doh@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
>

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

Attachment: smime.p7s