Re: [Driu] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pusateri-dhc-dns-driu-00.txt

[Tom Pusateri <[e-mail]>]

> On Jul 5, 2018, at 1:39 PM, Bob Harold <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I have concern:
> 
> 3. DHCPv6 Encapsulating Options
> 
> "There is no order
> implied by the order of options sent or received. It is up to the
> receiving client to determine which order to use the DNS server
> configurations."
> 
> Let's not wait for some non-standard way to decide the order. Please add 'priority' (and possibly 'weight') fields to the "OPTION_DNS_TLS" now, like in MX and SRV records.
> 

Willem has said that from experience with Stubby, that the client should determine the order it uses the discovered DNS servers. The network operator advertising the list doesn’t necessarily have real time data to determine response times, delays, etc. I’m happy to discuss this more. Why should the network operator dictate this?

> -------
> And a question:
> 
> Appendix A. ISC DHCPv6 Configuration Example
> 
> "option tls.adn code 228 = domain-list;
> 
> option tls.adn "dns.quad9.net <http://dns.quad9.net/>";"
> 
> Why is this defined as a list, but only a single domain is configured. And the text (in 1. Introduction) indicates only one domain is allowed per option. Is there a single domain format that should be used?

Yeah, this is a bug in the ISC config file. I will fix the example.

Thanks,
Tom