In your letter dated 12 Jan 2023 17:25:25 -0500 you wrote: >> Who benefits from a fake implementation? > >Some application demands, I dunno, DoQUIC or something, and refuses to run >otherwise. So I install a resolver library that makes the complaints go >away.
I don't understand. An application requires DoQ even though the local DNS proxy on a system doesn't support it? How is that application supposed to work then? Why would an application ship with a configuration that doesn't work, who benefits >I'm having trouble coming up with plausible scenarios for this thing >beyond a handful of us uber-nerds. One, if no application is going to use it, why are we discussing all the ways applications would break? In my expectation more detailed features, such as detailed listing of protocols, explicit selection of upstreams, etc. are very useful for diagnostics. Though there is also the desire to be feature complete. Today, Firefox allows the user to select DoH to a specific upstream. So the draft would not be feature complete if that behavior cannot be specified. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
