On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 21 Sep 2017, at 7:28 pm, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> You still don't have a reasonable answer for discovery.
Discovery isn't necessary for the primary use case -- user-driven configuration of their browser.
We can specify a DHCP option, but since it won't have any qualitative benefits over "normal" DHCP-configured DNS, I suspect it will get almost no implementation or deployment. So it's effectively busy work for the WG.
I think you're underestimating the value of a switch to a multiplexing facilitating protocol/transport. Once this has gotten its legs under it, I suspect that this approach for connecting to caching resolver will perform better than any of traditional upd/tcp connections or the tls/dtls approaches DPRIVE created.
And there is some discussion on that to be done, especially around whether you can re-use the current DHCP option (since it does not specify a port) and try this opportunistically or you should use a new option.
Just my view, of course,
Ted
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
_______________________________________________
Doh mailing list
Doh@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh